Increase Denied Because of Lead Paint Violations

Facts: Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on the installation of a new water tank and oil tank. The DRA ruled against landlord because there was a building-wide service reduction order in effect. Landlord requested reconsideration. Upon reconsideration, the DRA again ruled against landlord because there were building violations for peeling lead paint in the building. Landlord appealed, claiming that the violations weren't hazardous and that they had actually been corrected before landlord filed its MCI application, even though they weren't removed from HPD's records until later. The DHCR ruled against landlord. Landlord appealed, claiming that the DHCR's decision was unreasonable. Court: Landlord loses. The DHCR reasonably ruled that the existence of the lead paint violations at the time landlord's MCI application was filed barred any rent increases. Landlord didn't apply to HPD for removal of the violations until after the DHCR ruled on landlord's PAR, and the court can't consider this information, since it wasn't presented to the DHCR.

Weinreb Mgmt. v. DHCR: NYLJ, 5/2/01, p. 21, col. 5 (Sup. Ct. NY; Braun, J)